Among the means of grace, the word is the primary means from which the others find their operational efficacy. The 17th century English Puritan, Richard Sibbes explained,
The mark whereby this church is known is especially the truth of God. That is the seed of the church, the truth of God discovered by his word and ordinance. To which is annexed the sacraments and ecclesiastical government; but the former most necessary. And these three were typified in the ark; for there was the law signifying the word, and the pot of manna signifying the sacrament, and the rod to shew the discipline. Those three were, as it were, types of the three marks of the church. But especially the word.
The 19th century Princeton theologian, Geerhardus Vos, rightly explained the rationale behind an emphasis on the priority of the Word over the sacraments, when he wrote:
If necessary, we can think of Word as a means of grace without sacrament, but it is impossible to think of sacrament as a means of grace without Word. The sacraments depend on Scripture, and the truth of Scripture speaks in and through them.
In other words, the right administration of the sacraments is absolutely dependent on the accompaniment of the pure preaching of the word. The reverse is not true, however. The word is never dependent on the sacraments. The same is true of discipline. In order for the proper exercise of discipline to be enacted, Scripture must serve as the foundational guiding principle. We are not free to exercise discipline in a way that is out of accord with the biblical injunctions regarding its purposes and practice.
A Pure, yet Imperfect, Church
This opens yet another question. If the three marks of the church are the pure preaching of the word, the right administration of the sacraments, and the proper exercise of discipline, how pure must these three marks be for a church to still be considered a true church. This is a question that was also not foreign to the Reformers and the post-Reformation scholastics. In the Institutes, Calvin noted that the marks that distinguish a true church from a false church may be delinquent in some form or another. In Institutes 4.2, under the title, The True and False Church compared,” Calvin explained that a true church may only have some of the three marks and still be considered a church, so-called, but that Rome, who had perverted everyone of the marks to such a degree that they had “obliterated” them. He wrote,
I affirm that they are Churches, inasmuch as God has wonderfully preserved among them a remnant of his people, though miserably dispersed and dejected, and as there still remain some marks of the Church, especially those, the efficacy of which neither the craft of the devil, nor the malice of men, can ever destroy. But, on the other hand because those marks which we ought chiefly to regard in this controversy, are obliterated, I affirm, that the form of the legitimate Church is not to be found either in any one of their congregations, or in the body at large.
This was also the position of the members of the Westminster Assembly. In WCF 25.5, they explained,
The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth, to worship God according to his will.
The members of the Assemblty included this statement in the Confession of Faith, at least in part, over the debates that the Reformers had with the Anabaptists in the sixteenth century. For instance, Martin Bucer had contended with certain Anabaptist theologians of his day ower what he perceived to be a schismatic nature to their zeal for ecclesiastical purity. Bucer had raised strong objection to the severity with which the Anabaptists had approached the practice of discipline. Accordingly, the Reformers understood that there would be varying degrees of purity in regard to the administration of the word, sacraments, and discipline.
This ought to give every true believer a measure of caution before making strong pronouncements about any given Christian fellowship. The three marks must be present for a church to be considered a true church; however, there will always be mixture of truth and error in every visible church in this fallen world. Nevertheless, wherever the three marks are more or less purely ministered, Christ as prophet, priest, and king of the church is present; and, wherever Christ is at work in his church, the means of grace will be operational among the members of the church.
This article on the true church originally appeared here and is used by permission.
